User talk:Toshio Yamaguchi/Archive 3

Regarding NFCC enforcement... (occasioned by April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak)
I agree that NFCC enforcement is important, but if I could make a suggestion? The edit summary used to remove File:Waff Tower Cam.jpg wasn't very informative. Perhaps in the future, you could change that summary's pattern to include why the image fails NFCC guidelines? I was getting all wound up to go on a bit of a rant as to how it was a non-replaceable image of a one-time, ephemeral event where no free alternative exists... until I checked the file itself and realized that it was merely missing a FUR. (I have since corrected that and re-added the file to the article in question.)

Not trying to discourage you, just thought this might be a useful suggestion to try and make things a little more user-friendly in the future, and avoid possible drama if someone decides that the current summary is WP:BITEy. (Not that it is, but I'm just hoping to ensure it doesn't get tried!) rdfox 76 (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually I have a whole collection of edit summaries I use, including summaries pointing out why the file violates 10c, which is the only one of the criteria at WP:NFCC I am enforcing right now. The point is that the users wanting to include non-free material have to familiarize themselves with this policy and make sure they only add files in compliance with this policy. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries. Maybe you should indicate it's a 10c violation, though, just to help out new users who might not be familiar with the policy yet?  The NFCC can be very dense, intimidating, and confusing material, so help in figuring out just what the problem is would be welcome even for experienced users, I think.  rdfox 76 (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That seems to be a good idea. I will see how I can improve my edit summaries. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok :)
Ok, no worries :) I posted a quote to $\delta$'s talk page, and commented on the quote. It's apropos. Enjoy. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, couldn't agree more. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation to Die Zeit
Just a quick note because I'm rushing to work. Using the Die Zeit data from the excerpt you found at the complete review website I found the original article in the Die Zeit archives. See http://www.zeit.de/1988/11/utopie-vom-tod Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Awesome. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Brink's logo
I restored the logo to the one uploaded by me (I also traced it) since it's SVG quality & I corrected the summary info. Sorry if I made you think it needed a reupload.Grmike (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)grmike


 * Okay. Things took me too long due to my damn slow internet connection. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback
I saw that you removed your question on the article Wieferich prime. I looked at it when you posted but saw nothing evidently missing or wrong. But I didn't bother to post a "looks good" since I didn't think it would be informative. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I thought about possibly nominating the article at Good article nominations in the near future and therefore wanted to have some feedback about what needs improvement. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I figured as much. I'm not brave enough to take an article through that, but good luck with you if you do. Maybe Geometryguy can give you some advice; he's the only one I can think of who's had the patience to take a math article through it. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

More on your Help desk query
http://math.ca/Students/Newsletter/March2001/cmsletter1.ps appears to be only a cover page. But this search returns http://math.ca/Students/Newsletter/March2001/cmsletter.pdf, a pdf of the entire newsletter. —teb728 t c 06:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC) The ps file seems to have the entire newsletter (else it wouldn't have produced a hit in the search), but I can't find a way to open it (except as postscript source in notepad). —teb728 t c 07:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, TEB for your efforts. I will see what I can do. I have a number of sources at User:Toshio Yamaguchi, which I hope to work into Wieferich prime and that newsletter turned up while doing a search for more sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Re:Talkback
I had the idea of uploading the album cover of that page (Rebirth (Pain album)). And no, I don't have any copyrights to any pictures, I decided to do like I've been doing in the finnish Wikipedia. I don't know if you understood anything´of the page, but it says that I don't own the copyrights and that the copyrights are owned by Stockholm Records, the record company who recorded the album... or something. But no, I don't have any copyrights to that picture, so if I'm not allowed to upload because of all those complicated copyright-things then I'll not upload it. Anotherdeadone (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know the rules of the Finnish Wikipedia. Here on the English Wikipedia, copyrighted files such as album covers, are classified as non-free files (ie files which have not been released under a free license). That album cover you want to upload is non-free. If you want to upload it, you will have to go to Upload and select It is the cover of an album or a single. In the next step you must select In an infobox that is written about the release. In the next dialogue, first select the file on your computer (you need to download the file from the Finnish Wikipedia) first. Then in the field labeled Destination filename, choose a descriptive name for the file (see WP:UPI for more information). You should fill out the field labeled Summary as good as you can (this information is needed for the file to comply with WP:NFCC Policy 10c). After you filled in the information, go to the field labeled Licensing and select Album cover. Then click Upload file to perform the upload and you are done. Then you can use the file on the article Rebirth (Pain album) only.  As an additional note, it is very important that in the Summary field you give the exact title of the article, where the file is used (best is a wikilink to that article), so please check that the wikilink does not go for example to a redirect or disambiguation page, as this will lead to problems. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of near Wieferich primes
I nominated List of near Wieferich primes for deletion. I believe its encyclopedic value is very limited and WP is not the OEIS. Please consider supplying this list as a b-file for the sequence instead. Maxal (talk) 12:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)



The article List of near Wieferich primes has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:NOTEVERYTHING; the list is not of general interest; Wieferich prime is enough

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.


 * I submitted a revision containing the b-file for review. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I approved it. Maxal (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Rebirth (Pain album)
Uh. Finally. I am thankful for helping me. I now uploaded the picture, and I'm happy. Thanks. ¨10:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anotherdeadone (talk • contribs)


 * No problem. I made a small fix to the rationale here. Now everything seems to be okay. Best. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Please add this to your watchlist:

 * Outline of the United Nations

Thank you. The Transhumanist 02:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Brink's Company logo.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brink's Company logo.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

What is fiction?
Is this section accurate? Is it complete? Please take a quick look. Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I replied at Talk:Outline of fiction. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The Transhumanist 03:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

January, 2012
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia as you did at User:Toshio_Yamaguchi with this edit, you may be sent to the comfy, if small, gulag. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like a traffic friendly location. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the parking's hell. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for taking the initiative to do this. --EEMIV (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. I don't get what the problem is either. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:OddishGloomAndVileplume.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:OddishGloomAndVileplume.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 07:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Council/Proposals/NFCC Enforcement
A contributing explanation is that there's been so much heat over NFCC issues, that a number of people presume the heat is being generated by the people who patrol NFCC. If they just didn't do that work, there wouldn't be a problem, right? Seriously, it's not a conscious thought by many, but that's the attitude. I see soooooo much in the way of claims against NFCC patrollers without any supporting evidence whatsoever. Case examples are written all over the arbcom case. There's presumptions not backed up by any evidence about what the community thinks, how they react to him, etc. It has to be factual, right? I mean, everybody just knows these things, right? Right?

Sven attacks me and you as zealots. Yet, I look at our block logs and I find nothing for incivility, rudeness etc. I check WP:WQA for any mention of you, and find nothing. Me, I've been taken before WP:WQA a couple of times with nothing actionable found. I've performed more than 10,000 NFCC enforcement edits. If I was the 'zealot' he claims me to be, I would have been at least blocked by now, if not banned from the project.

The trend I'm seeing too much of lately is towards accusations being enough to sustain a complaint. It hasn't gained complete traction yet, but I see things headed that way. Of course, I've done the same in this posting :) But, the difference here is I am speaking abstractly, not about a particular editor except in so far as Sven has called us zealots (and there's no disputing he's said that, and we know it). More and more people are taking the abstract methods and applying them to editors. We don't need no stinkin' proof, you're guilty! :)

Ah well, just another badge of honor to add to my collection, in addition to "bitter virgin", "troll", "lowest form of Wikipedia editor", "the most ignorant and disrespectful editor", "drunken sailor", and tada! now I can add "zealot". --Hammersoft (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "If they just didn't do that work, there wouldn't be a problem, right?"


 * I think that is true. The attitude seems to be that as long as the NFCC enforcers don't become active, there is no problem. And somehow this is being perverted into "there has been discussion about you on this and that noticeboard, so you must be disruptive". But what should one expect from someone who makes the process inherently hostile and comes across as zealot . We are what the majority sees in us and this majority isn't even looking at as directly, they look at what the majority sees in us (scratches his head). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting conundrum to the say the least. I'm quite certain that if we held a vote that was allowed to conclude without regard to Foundation dictum, we'd permit as much non-free use as legally possible. There's a number interesting effects that happen around here;
 * If you remove non-free content from userpages, some people get upset with you. It doesn't really matter how much you do it; the problem still keeps routinely happening (User_talk:Kata89).
 * If you remove non-free content from articles where there is no rationale for that use, some people get really upset with you, and accuse you of all manner of things. People blast you for not fixing or adding rationales.
 * If you remove fair use images of living people per Foundation dictum, people fight you...even long time experienced editors (User_talk:Hammersoft).
 * If you remove images from an article where there is heavy overuse of non-free images, people fight you. Even after explaining and explaining and explaining (Talk:Indian_rupee), they still remain intractable and start RfCs (Talk:Indian_rupee). So, we end up repeating the same debates over and over and over again.
 * If you remove album covers from discographies, people swear up and down it isn't a discography (Talk:Europe_'72:_The_Complete_Recordings), and fight for re-inclusion.
 * None of these NFCC enforcement actions are without direct basis in policy/guideline. Yet, no matter how long we fight, how long we enforce, how long we push to get the project in compliance with the Foundation's demands, the situation doesn't really get any better.
 * We're not addressing the root cause. All we're doing is addressing the symptoms, and the project is permanently sick while we do nothing but treat this symptomatically. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree here. I don't see what could be done about it though. There is the position of allowing only free media vs allowing unlimited quantities of non-free media. Neither of those two extremes is going to pass, so we are caught in the middle. Allow as much NFC as desired as long as the 10 criteria are met. And since people CAN use NFC, they WILL use it, although they SHOULDN'T. So this brings us back to what we already found in the past: The root of the problem is the people, who don't care about our mission, uploading non-free files in violation of our NFCC policy and when we (the NFCC enforcers) cross their way, they use their secret weapon: slapping a non-free use rationale on it. It has a rationale, so everything is fine. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is something that is difficult to overcome. So many times I see rationales equating to "I put it on the article because I like pictures on articles". --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The main problem here seems to be NFCC criterion 8. We enforce 10c (9 isn't the issue here), but the real problem isn't with 10c, but with 8. Actually compliance with 10c means virtually nothing. I can write a rationale for anything and having a rationale and having a valid rationale are two pairs of shoes. When enforcing 10c, we only check having a rationale. The core issue however is 8 (having a valid rationale). We know exactly where the problem lies, but we cannot do anything about it. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you have a 'law' that is unenforceable, should the law exist? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to say no. We have the NFC criteria, because these criteria serve an overall purpose, namely allowing us editors to use copyrighted material in the building of a *cough* free encyclopedia, if that material is needed for the readers understanding of the subject. The important question is the following: Which of the following two goals has a higher priority:
 * building a high quality encyclopedia as free as possible or
 * building a free encyclopedia as high-quality as possible
 * The answer to that question should control our direction with regards to non-free content. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For people who want the latter, there's really no question as to the direction we're to go in. Unfortunately, reality is what drives our mission here, not the Foundation. It doesn't matter how lofty our goals are. Goals are meaningless when in reality they are not observed. That's the reality here. Few people care about the NFCC policy. Even fewer are willing to tangle with the endless arguments that envelop NFCC control efforts. Even fewer still are willing to stick it out long enough to see a serious effort through to fruition because of all the hatred that gets levied at people enforcing NFCC. So, given that we can't enforce NFCC sufficiently to make any difference (in particular criterions 1, 3a and 8), I think we should remove those elements of NFCC policy entirely. Now of course people will say "we can't do that" but that IS what we are in fact doing. It's like putting up a speed limit for 60 kph, and EVERYone (but a few die hards crazy enough to go the speed limit and get run over) goes 200 kph on average, with no consequences for doing so. The speed limit sign is meaningless. But if we try to remove it for not being enforced, people get upset. The vast majority of people are NOT sold on the Free culture movement. For most of them, they just don't get it. Why should WE care? If we're using non-free content legally, what the hell is the difference between libre and gratis? It doesn't matter, we're using it legally! --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "So, given that we can't enforce NFCC sufficiently to make any difference (in particular criterions 1, 3a and 8), I think we should remove those elements of NFCC policy entirely."
 * I agree here. I too don't see the purpose of having practically unenforceable criteria. We could start an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, perhaps with a link at VPR. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you would...let's continue here for the moment. I think we both know that such an RfC will result in no change to the NFCC policy. I think the best shot is to separate them into their own, individual RfCs, specifically for 1, 3a, 8 and 10c. I think we could make cases for each of them, in so far as we've been operating for years trying to enforce NFCC but not making progress. Even so, I think it unlikely any of them would pass. More abstractly, we need a better path to bring recognition on the part of the community that the status quo is not adhering to Foundation dictum. Now, I'm not suggesting we have a definitive goal in mind; i.e. removal of all non-free content for example. But, it is a worthy (and likely unachievable) goal to simply get community recognition the NFCC situation is untenable. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Getting community recognition the NFCC situation is untenable would probably be the best starting point to work onwards from. Perhaps we could formulate a generic text summarizing the current situation and why it is unsatisfactory and put that on WP:VPI or WP:VPR? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an incremental step, but perhaps a very important one. Perhaps a simple up/down poll? Concern; if discussion starts at this point, it will badly fragment. Not that I want to quell debate, I just want to see a definitive answer on where the community stands. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something like
 * Please indicate, whether you agree with each of the following statements or not:


 * An editor can objectively determine, whether the use of a non-free file satisfies NFCC criterion 1.


 * An editor can objectively determine, whether the use of a non-free file satisfies NFCC criterion 3a.


 * An editor can objectively determine, whether the use of a non-free file satisfies NFCC criterion 8.


 * Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hrm. I'm thinking more along the lines of "Do you think the WP:NFCC #8 policy is ..." (words fail me right now, but tenable isn't the right wording). --Hammersoft (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Do you think WP:NFCC Policy 8 is helpful in determining whether the use of a non-free file is justifiable under fair use". Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That might be it. I need to ponder, but I think that might be it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a rough draft of what the poll might look like at User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Community poll regarding the NFCC situation. If you have any ideas how to improve it, just let me know or feel free to edit the draft and throw it in. Critical commentary explicitly welcome. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a million
Thanks a million for correcting the mess I made (accidentally, I hasten to add!) of List of chocolate bar brands. The article is looking very good again. I think that in future, I better stay away from tables in Wikipedia - they are not my strong point! You have done a tremendous job in editing this article, and if you do not mind my saying this, it is now looking better than it did in the early hours of this morning (Februay 16 2012). Once again, thank you for your help, it is much appreciated! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. I agree, tables can be a real pain to edit. Happy editing. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted pages in your userspace
Hi, I saw you asked for a list of these at the help desk but then collapsed the discussion. Do you still want that list? As an admin, I can get it for you (it doesn't need a bot or AWB). Tra (Talk) 09:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you could create it perhaps at User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Deleted userspace pages, I would be happy. Thanks for the message. -- Toshio Yamaguchi  (tlk−ctb) 17:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok done. Let me know if you need anything else from those pages. Tra (Talk) 18:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

 * ✅ -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of your edit
I strongly suggest you look at the other 50,000 film articles on wikipedia, including our featured articles like Fight Club (film) and Casino Royale (2006 film) and learn policy before you go around thinking you know everything! We accept film posters/DVD covers in the infoboxes but we don't permit many screenshots unless they are for critical commentary..♦ Dr. Blofeld


 * I suggest you read WP:NFCC. 10c requires that the image description page contains "The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item" Reverted again. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Then add it then!! Its far more destructive going through and removing images simply because they need to have the name of the article linked. Common sense.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read the policy. WP:NFCC says "Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." Furthermore WP:NFCCE says "...it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale." If you want to use non-free content it is your responsibility to ensure it complies with policy. Regards. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you are in danger of taking "rules" too seriously. They are merely guidelines drawn up by editors such as ourselves and are generally acknowledged as such. Just because the guidelines state "If you want to use non-free content it is your responsibility to ensure it complies with policy" doesn't mean it stops you or anybody else from helping wikipedia and adding something very trivial which wouldn't take you 2 seconds. Its more of an effort for you to chase editors up and issue deletions than it is to simply add the article title!!♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If I didn't take the rules serious, a project such as Wikipedia could not exist, since then we would have a website where everybody could do whatever he or she wants to do. As for "helping wikipedia and adding something very trivial which wouldn't take me 2 seconds", our views regarding what helps Wikipedia and what doesn't seem to diverge greatly. According to our mission the goal is to collect content under a free license. If you want to use non-free content, it is your responsibility to provide a valid rationale (see the fouth bullet point under WP:NFCCE). -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wieferich prime
The article Wieferich prime you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Wieferich prime for things which need to be addressed. GoP T C N 11:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
You have new messages at Help desk. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I also wanted to let you know that you can leave an HTML comment if you want to. I noticed you had also asked about that and it might be reasonable for the seemingly out-of-place anchor in the table. Just use >!--HTML comment here--< (although with the traditional < > format.) Just be sure to preview and make sure it doesn't break the template. Since it seems to be immune to my attempt to make it visible here, I think you'll be ok. Also, while investigating I ended up at HTML for the first time and found the example in the lede humorous, check it out :-) MyNameWasTaken (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wieferich prime
The article Wieferich prime you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wieferich prime for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? GoP T C N 16:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Unicode redirects
Unicode redirects, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Unicode redirects and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Unicode redirects during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. the wub "?!"  23:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

table of congruences
I've put an "orphan" tag on the table of congruences because currently no other articles link to it. Almost certainly there are others that should link to it, and possibly you are better qualified than others to know which ones. If you know of other articles that should link to that one, could you add those links? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I added some links from other articles. There are still quite few links, but I don't think there will be much more, since it is a very specialized table. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 09:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Hahc21 [ TALK ] [ CONTRIBS  ] 16:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not edible
Are you sure you wouldn't like to fix your answer to a help desk question?— Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass the mustard bottle of electrons, please! --Hammersoft (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cto
Template:Cto has been nominated for deletion. Template:Cto creates a conditional topic overview linkbox for the See also section of an article with links to (1) the topic article, (2) the outline of the topic, (3) the index of topic-related articles, (4) the bibliography of the topic, and (5) the Wikipedia book on the topic. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Templates for discussion. Yours aye, Buaidh  20:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Versatel building
Hello! I was just reviewing your article Versatel building and I added a few references. But I wish the article had more information about the building itself, BEFORE its demolition - at a minimum, when it was built. Do you have that information, and can you add it? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the review. I currently don't have any information about when the building was erected or about its later use. My previous searches didn't turn up much useful data on that, but I will try to get that information. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 19:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I found this book on Google Books. That might contain some information about the Versatel building, but I don't have access to the book, so I can't confirm it. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 19:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked the German Wikipedia, but there wasn't an article about the building, and I didn't see anything offhand in the Versatel article. I got the feeling (from one of the sources I added) that Versatel did not own the building, just leased it. Let's not get too worked up about this, it was just a thought. --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I also tried searching Google and Google News Archive in German, using searching for versatel gebäude stuttgart. But everything I could find was about the demolition, and the new building that will replace it. They sure must have hated the thing, to be so glad it was getting torn down! :-) --MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yay, you found something! Well done! --MelanieN (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Shrike (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

List of political parties in Lebanon
I saw your tagging of this article and had to laugh. This is not laughing at you, but rather the situation. For three years, dating back to Fall of 2009, encompassing about dozen edits, I kept removing non-free content from that article due to violating WP:NFTABLE. Much of the non-free content also violated WP:NFCC #10c, but that was really beside the point. I put down my pen, and violations creep back in again. Tagging it for #10c problems isn't going to fix it.

The thing is, there's no reason this article should have non-free content in the table like that. We've known this for years. But, it doesn't matter. Anyone can add non-free with impunity, never having to worry about WP:NFC or WP:NFCC. Meanwhile, the people trying to enforce it play a game of shoveling the snow while it's falling at record rates, with no end in sight.

Futility, thy name is Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yepp, totally agree. The good thing is this task is going to keep me busy for a while and give me something to do, although I could make some rather bad faith assumptions about where this might lead to in the long term. I am not really sure how much of the underlying issues this is going to solve instead of simply painting them over. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:NFCC issue note
Is there a particular reason you set this up requiring substitution instead of just transclusion like most other cleanup tags? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It uses substitution due to the date parameter which is generated by the five tildes used in the first parameter of the template (see the documentation at Template:NFCC issue note). This wouldn't work properly if the template were being transcluded. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw that; what I intended to ask was what the benefits were of using that method instead of the more traditional "date=July 2012" and whether or not it's worth the extra dozen lines of wikicode which end up at the top of the articles you're tagging. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at this revision of an article I tagged with that template, I count 18 lines of additional wikimarkup. I do not see what harm those extra 18 lines of wikicode which end up at the top of the articles I am tagging cause. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 09:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I fixed the template. Thus it uses transclusion now and the date parameter works. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think that single line of the transcluded template will be much less off-putting for anyone who wants to edit the image(s) and/or article and fix the tagged problems compared to having to search for where exactly the template ends. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Trouted
Another user regards you as an NFCC zealot because YOUR REASON HERE

Gotta love it :) Also love the edit notice :) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * =P -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)